First off, we need to set a few definitions. A true, or direct democracy, is where every eligible person has a vote for all governmental decisions. Everything is voted on and the majority (or set amount of the majority, usually 2/3rds or 60%) prevails.

As far as "free," I mean the allowance to exercise rights with few restraints, so much as by exercising those rights does not violate the life, liberty, or property of others.

Most governments today are republics. The United States is a federal presidential republic, bound by a Constitution, where powers are divided between state (as well as local) and federal governments with a chief executive.
Australia isn't a democracy in that sense because they are also under the republic system. They have a parliament in which the majority pick a Prime Minister and these representatives vote in their stead, similar in which the United States has.
They also have this weird system in which this far-right guy got elected (the one who got egged) with only a few votes -- that wouldn't happen in the US. The districts in the US are voted upon at-large within that district. Basically, no one is going to be seated in the federal government with only 20 votes.

Additionally, there are a lot of things I feel are fundamental freedoms which are not expressly allowed in Australia. Regardless of what your positions on these may be, I personally feel that they are fundamental rights.

One of them deals with speech. In the United States, you can state your opinion, or facts, even if they are offensive, and the government cannot proceed with legal action against you. You can get fired from your job or vilified by the community, and rightly so if one is a Nazi, but it is not criminally punishable. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that in Australia, as well as certain European countries, you can also be prosecuted for things said on the internet if they are offensive, even if they are facts.
In the US, in order to be prosecuted for speech, it must be "fighting words," communicating threats, or somehow used in a way to cause "imminent danger." Just speaking your own offensive opinion about someone or something is not against the law as long as you aren't following them as they attempt to get away and continually harassing them.

Another one is the right to self defense. Australia has outlawed many weapons. If your home is invaded, you're expected to attempt to retreat and call the police. Fuck that. If I'm in my home and someone breaks in, I'm defending myself and my family. I am not running out a back door or locking myself in a room and hope that the cops get there before we're murdered.

Now I'm not an expert about Australia, so there may be more things, but those are just a few things off the top of my head.

So, to summarize, I first addressed what democracy is and what free is. Then, I showed how neither the US nor Australia is a democracy. After that, I gave two examples of fundamental freedoms that are restricted more in Australia than they are the United States, which is why I don't consider Australia a free democracy.

It's not so bad, some people think it's anti-democracy but it has some pluses. At the very least it ensures that voting is easily accessible for everyone, no matter where they are in the country.

As long as you get your name ticked off, you can choose to vote 'informally' - which basically means not following instructions on how to vote either accidentally or on purpose, then it doesn't count. I worked at the election this year in Australia and one person had drawn their own box and written Jacinda Adern (NZ PM) next to it. It was the most creative non-vote of the day.

There were three voting centres within 2km of where I live (the closest was 200m or so). I arrived at 8:00 (Saturday morning) and was out by 8:15 even with the long queue to get into the building as it opened.

The process is super easy.

The process isn't perfect but with everyone voting, it's a bit more representative of the general population than the other systems.

To be clear, I am not arguing for compulsory voting, but rather for educating and arguing for the benefits of voting, what it means, and why it should be seen and treated simply as a right. People tend to not do things if it is their right because it is also their right not to. Educating people that is it their obligation to society, will have more impact and could help transform the society we live in. Abstaining from voting, arguably benefits only those who are opposed to democracy. People tend to forget that not in the too distant past, and in various occasions, people died to get the right to vote.

I agree with you, but many people (at least in the US) have fallen victim to apathy and therefore do not vote. There are many reasons they don't so I don't really want to bother listing them. My point is that I don't think that any amount of education or speaking with them would really change their mind. There are countless of campaigns every major election year in the United States to get people to go out and vote, yet many people still do not.

​

My generation does tend to vote more (depending on who you ask, I'm a Millennial or one of the last Gen X'ers) than some of the others, but there are always going to be those who are just like, "Nah, doesn't matter." Maybe this election will be different. A lot of people who said it didn't matter woke up realizing that Donald Fucking Trump was president, lol.

​

I think a break from the two-party system that the US has would change things for the better. In 2016 as well as a few other recent election we had to choose who was the least bad for our country. There are only two major parties, and it's not the first time that they both nominated a bad candidate.

The problem is universal. Everyone the last few years, woke up to a result they did not expect (either they voted or did not vote for that). A lot of results have been a surprise both for the winners and the losers. It has happened around the world. But if we do not talk about this, if we do not make a case, then logic and rational thinking, civilization as a whole loses again.

We are at crossroads in human history. How this future shapes, falls to all of us. No matter the generation, no matter the age, the financial status, the political background. We are all in it. Sometimes, one has to make a decision between two, or more evils, to choose the least disruptive, and the one that could at least be more manageable. Certainly not a good or easy choice. But it is not an end game. It is ongoing. Otherwise you would vote once and you are done for life. Or never vote. Every few years we have the opportunity to shift the mark. Little by little. Sidesteps. Civilization did not happen over night. :)

But without involvement, how can we say that at least we tried and even we stood our ground?

To be very clear, in your OP you say voting would be an obligation, which it is not, it IS a right so you're factual wrong. If you want to educate people then you shouldn't state false facts, be honest with people because if someone finds out you lied to them they're not gonna trust you so easily again.

Educating people that is it their obligation to society, will have more impact and could help transform the society we live in.

Again, this is the wrong way to do it because you make it sound as if they have to vote.

Abstaining from voting, arguably benefits only those who are opposed to democracy.

No, not giving your vote can be reasonable, e.g. in my early 20s I didn't vote, I didn't know who I would vote, I had no interest in the political plans of all the parties so instead of making a mistake and voting the wrong party, I didn't vote at all.

People tend to forget that not in the too distant past, and in various occasions, people died to get the right to vote.

And this is relevant how?

To me you make it sound as if the world is fucked if not every single person who's eligible to vote does give their vote, which is not the case. Statistically speaking people who don't vote balance each other out. It is only wrong to not vote if you'd knew who to vote, you cannot give the opposing parties a vote if you don't favor a party yourself.

However what's wrong are people who don't go to vote and then argue about the results of the election.

I appreciate your opinion but you are talking about facts in a philosophical, ethical and as I can gather from all the responses debatable idea. In contrast, you present no actual fact to support that voting is a right which seems to be your main argument here. There is no statistic, no number, no universal truth. You have your opinion, I have my opinion, and we discuss and we present our arguments. If there were facts, it would be easier to reach a conclusion, don't you think?

If you want to consider it as a right, that is fine. It is just that from my point of view, I believe that this needs to slowly change, and through education the benefits and downsides of voting should be made clear. Most people get to voting age, without knowing what they vote for, what voting is, what to look for etc. As you share in your post. This is something that I feel should be addressed.

If you do not feel like voting, that is fine. If you are not finding a reason to vote, that is fine. If you consider that none represents you then that is fine too. But change does not come through apathy, but action. The most democratic way to express opposition, request or even demand change and the least disruptive to the society is the election ritual. And that is down to people's votes.

Thank you, couldn't have said it better, and was worried when i opened this thread on why this headline was upvoted so much.

Not everyone should vote... if you don't know what they hell is going on ... don't vote. You Should look into it and make an informed decision, or imo, you have no right to complain...

but theres been instances of a guy running w/ no campaign or experience and won.... b/c his last name was green, and people thought he was w/ the green party... or other famous names.

voting is a right, and we need more informed, educated voters, i don't like turning it into American Idol, its easier than ever to look up each candidate and takes 15-20 minutes to get a summary on all the big issues.

It IS a slippery slope. I'm from the United States and I know all about how African Americans were disenfranchised during the Jim Crow era despite having given the right to vote for men (15th Amendment) and women (19th Amendment).
They were given very unfair literacy tests which even a graduate-level educated person would find difficult due to the wording of the directions and the fact that the test was timed and failure to complete it in that time would result in a failure of the test and a denial of the right to vote. The states had "grandfather clauses" in which you did not have to take that test if your grandfather was able to vote, which allowed poor whites to vote while preventing the African Americans from doing so (because prior to the Civil War, blacks could only vote in a couple southern states, but only if they were free and owned property).

While it probably would not fly, having the stances of a candidate and having the person pick those would be interesting. At the end, a screen could have "Candidate A" (no name or party) and a checkmark to the stances they agreed with and then "Candidate B" (same as A, no picture, name, or party) with checks next to the stances they agreed with, and then they pick it that way -- kind of a blind vote by the stances set by the candidate.

Even then, it might be liable to challenges such as politicians who speak well and decide to change their ways due to party politics or just being a politician once they finally get in office.

You can force someone to fulfill an obligation (at least to an extent).

Forcing someone to perform a moral obligation is not a necessary feature of a moral obligation. Indeed the key test for whether someone thinks an act is a moral obligation is whether they think the act ought be done even if in circumstances where the agent could get away with not doing it. For example most folk hold that it is moral obligation to not kill someone for fun, even when you can get away with it.

Does it make your tentacles vibrate at the prospect?
Although, I think what he's saying is that voting should be thought MORE of an obligation than a right. He's not saying either or here, he's saying that since a lot of people think of matters in black and white, it should be thought more of as an obligation than a right.

Not sure if that makes sense, but I'll let him explain. It's just what I gathered from our discussion earlier.

But you are right to make an attempt at /u/TedAracane's intentions. The intention possibly being ...

voting should be thought MORE of an obligation than a right.

Once cleared of the confusion I'd suggest it is more likely, until cleared up by the author themselves, that the intention was rather: voting should be regarded as a moral obligation (which is something that entails the moral right), not a mere legal right. Or, more simply, voting is a moral obligation, not a mere legal right. Or, even more simply: voting is a moral obligation.

I agree. If the 2020 elections come to be Trump vs Biden. I will not vote. I refuse to be morally responsible for one of them being in office. I only vote when I truly believe in someone. People say you just have to weigh the pros and cons when dealing with politicians. I disagree.

I felt the same way with Trump v Clinton, so I voted for Gary Johnson. He didn't know where Aleppo was (that was his Waterloo, he could have gotten a larger vote had he not flubbed that), but I felt that he was a genuine candidate. He was a moderate Libertarian. There were some things that he liked that I didn't, as well as things that I liked about him.

I just felt like the other two candidates had way too many bodies in the backyard and skeletons in the closet for voting for either of them. Hillary lost my vote, and Trump didn't earn it. I still voted, though.

I appreciate what you say. But this is what the argument is for actually. If one does not cast their vote, that vote will not be counted. If you do not want to vote someone specifically, and want to make a statement, at least there is always the option to cast a blank one. It will be counted and reported. Then the vote will not be lost but accounted for.

To me that is a problem with the system. There is usually about 30% who don't vote and I feel like the press/ politicians ignore this as "these people are clearly lazy or don't care" when really we should be asking why they're not voting and admitting that the system isn't perfect and can always be improved.

I agree though that a spoilt ballot would have a similar effect. However that too isn't seen as a viable option to most people. At the very least there should be some kind of clear none of the above option or something.

Trump was pre-selected and state approved? No, you're just a progressive fool who refuses to participate in our democracy with everyone else. Clinton crushed Sanders in the primary, absolutely destroyed him. Your choice to not vote in the general is on you.

And I participate in my democracy. But I am also well-aware of the system I am participating in.

Our democracies are obsolete. Soon we will have smart houses, our cars will drive themselves, and we'll keep on choosing a few guys every few years for a few places, when we could have broadened our democracy already. Why are things not put up for a referendum more often? Why do we not have recall elections? Why do we not elect more public offices? Why is power not more decentralised? Why must we feed this ancient machine, designed when nothing was faster than a horse or a ship?

Brazil, Australia, etc etc, but they're not going to lock people up for not voting. That would kind of defeat the purpose, wouldn't it? lol

If they really wanted to enforce voting, they'd do a "use it or lose it" thing. If you didn't vote, you wouldn't get a chance to again unless you fulfilled some tasks or signed an oath or some crap like that.

If you’re referring to the United States, there are generally primaries to democratically decide who is on the final ballot. Basically anyone can get their name on a primary ballot. There’s a very low threshold. Plus, you can do write-ins, even in the general election.

Noone said you cannot do something about it. If you feel you have what it takes, or you are better, then put yourself forward for election. That is a right every citizen has. You have the power, use it wisely 😁

Or, go independent. Speak the truth, talk in real voice and share/debate your ideas. Or,work from within the least "evil" party. Influence the change from inside. There are ways to change what we do not like. I appreciate what you say. But our vote is what our true power is. Career politicians are afraid of that. Why do you think the rhetoric changes so many times?

Voting is simultaneously your chance to participate in and be a part of democracy, and also to realize that you are just a tiny little ant in a colony of hundreds of millions, a cell in a super organism whose influence is so slight that you could die off to tomorrow and the super organism wouldn’t even notice. Voting is not a sacred act, it’s just part of our flawed system of governance. The system is not broken when you don’t vote. It isn’t fixed when you do. It continues chugging along either way, and after you’ve voted in a half dozen elections and watched the outcomes, you see that the less local the election, the less impact you have. Your city council seats can be won or lost by a margin of 10 votes, judges and local ordinances as well. Statewide seats tend to be won within hundreds or thousands of votes.

Presidential elections? In the US our representative democracy combined with the winner take all electoral college means your vote is even less impactful. If you don’t live in a swing state then your vote is essentially guaranteed to go to the party that historically wins your state. Major party candidates tend to not even bother campaigning in these states, your vote is so meaningless to them. In swing states, margins can be relatively thin, but elections are still mostly won or lost in the thousands to tens of thousands range. The 2000 election was truly exceptional in that the Florida vote was so close, it was within a few hundred votes, which is within the statistical margin of error. Let that sink in. At the presidential level, your vote is so insignificant that it’s literally smaller than the margin of error built into the mechanism that counts it.

In politics the large elections are the headliners that get the most play, but we essentially have no influence there. Yet the local elections where we have the most influence are often times ignored. I know so many people who think our justice system is broken and yet don’t discuss local elections for district attorneys or judges, elections that barely anyone casts votes for because they’re essentially ignored by local press.

“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.”

– “Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time” by Carroll Quigley

In this day and age it's so easy to vote it's kind of sad when people don't bother. My ballot comes in the mail I fill it out and drop it back in the mailbox. I don't even have to leave the house. In the 2016 election 46% of registered voters didn't vote. That's a huge amount of voting power that was too lazy to bother. Either because they were told their candidate was going to win and so they felt they didn't need to vote or they are just too lazy. But I will say that if you didn't vote then you don't have a say in how the country is being run. Or your state or city government.

And? Excluding the entire concept of democracy and voting from the subject of world politics is a very very large and very very pointless deduction off the scope of the conversation, taking it's historic and present day significance into account. Especially considering the fact that the overwhelming majority of reddit users hail from countries where voting is practiced.

I dont think majority of the countries would be a dictatorship. Im sure there are far more democracies. There is Cuba China and a few african countries where there is no democracy other than that, they are democracies.

Yeah and like... gerrymandering and voter suppression are much more the actual issue than lazy people not voting. Even if all the lazies got off their asses and voted, justice still wouldn’t prevail. Because the system is rigged.

I mean I live in Australia where we have to vote, but I only vote for single issue parties or independents, Pirate Party or the Greens or Science Party, stuff like that. Though some people believe that if you do what I do and not vote for one of the two major parties it's as bad as not voting, of course it wouldn't be a problem if people weren't so worried about their side losing that they feel like they have to comprimise on their beliefs to elect the lesser of two evils.

I see no problem in your approach. I think it is a fair and justified view. Voting for smaller parties, adds to pluralism, more fair representation and helps to avoid polarization. Because when polarization happens the tendency is to just contradict without any useful debate or way forward, as there is no other pressure or urgency.

In situations where parties gain representation based off of their vote share, even if they don’t win, which is the case in many parliamentary system. That’s not how it works in the US and a lot of other countries though. It’s winner takes all. Casting a vote for a party or candidate that has absolutely no chance doesn’t change representation whatsoever. A 1% share of the vote doesn’t increase pluralism or help avoid polarization. It essentially never changes the conversation. It just takes away votes from the only actual viable candidates. Say what you want about that system, but that’s the reality of it, and as adults we need to make hard choices, even if you need to hold your nose while doing it because there is always a side that aligns more with your views and interests than the other.

I tend to agree with OP here, it’s a shame where we’re at currently, there seems to be a real lack of trust between the public and the politicians. Unfortunately we are only hurting ourselves with these defeatist attitudes feeling like nothing will change or casting a vote is pointless. There are some really good independents and start up parties but the people iv spoke to feel like
”well I like the ‘x’ party but nobodies gonna vote for them so I might as well stick with ‘y’”
this is a huge part of the problem imo.
It’s like everybody’s waiting for somebody else to make a stand so they can jump on board once the trains rolling. But if we all do that then the train will never leave the station.

I second your opinion. Indeed, we tend to try to vote for the favorite. We are missing the point and tend to vote as if it was a bet. We forget that we have to live with our decision for a few years. And then, when the times comes for the next election, we repeat the same mistake.

“Nice people made the best Nazis. My mom grew up next to them. They got along, refused to make waves, looked the other way when things got ugly and focused on happier things than ‘politics’. They were lovely people who turned their heads as their neighbors were dragged away. You know who weren’t nice people? Resisters.” (Naomi Shulman)

This is something we were taught at an uni law class. We were comparing our legislation, where voting is mandatory, and American one which is optional. Our professor said that rights come with obligations, and the right to vote and participate in government comes with the obligation to vote.

If you force people who aren't interested to vote, all you'll get is noise. Everyone who says this imagines that most of those extra votes will go toward their preferred candidates / referenda responses. You'll be disappointed when instead people just pick the guy with the coolest sounding name or vote "no" on everything without even reading it.

Personally, I'd like to see voter participation down around 30%. That's about how many people know what the hell they're voting for.

Indeed, people get manipulated, and even easier now with all the advertisements and the means to reach the wider population. This is part of the game. The politics game. A bit of political education would be enough to start turning things around. But dismissing the majority as idiots. A bit far fetched?

To be honest, if you choose not to pay attention to news, not educate yourself about the issues/candidates, have little to no knowledge of history, and are too lazy to cast a ballot on voting day...I really don’t want you to vote. I don’t want any uninformed votes being cast. All that does is water-down my vote.

Basically its holding people hostage to an ideal that they had no choice in being subject to. Its really an old feeling idea and it gains traction today because some people are desperate to feel idealistic about democracy after the recent shit shows so they believe somehow that the real failing is non participation, that enthusiasm alone will fix it.

Not enthusiasm, political education and involvement. What the system has achieved is getting us to not bother and to consider politics just another reality show. Politics is much more than that. It is the struggle of ideas, for the good of society, policies to better the lives of the people and our environment. it is not about holding people hostage, but getting them to realize the kind of freedom they have and using it as they see fit, rather than feel they do not have any power at all.

American representative democracy is so diluted that you need to cast dozens, if not hundreds, of votes to even make a small drop of impact, which is immediately outweighed by lobbying money, power conglomerates, etc

Well give us someone who is worth my vote . Nowadays our choices are like you either vote for a liar or you vote for the cheater . Need a new system. Not about who ever can bullshit us the most . I say fuck them all and start over .

The freedom to vote is also the freedom to not bother. I tried it once when I turned 18 and was eligible to vote, I haven't bothered since and wont be doing so again.

Apparently there is an election in my country today, something to do with the EU. Meh democracy is overrated, I would prefer the Singaporean model, that seems so much better than ours which serves the interest of big business.

The right to abstain is just as important as the right to vote. Don't conflate your political passion with what's right and wrong. Besides, do we really want low quality votes being cast? People who aren't naturally driven to vote are more likely to vote out of expediency if they're forced to. And when it comes to the fate of the country, I really don't want a bunch of uninterested, uninformed people voting. Forced voting sounds like an easy path to manipulating vote results with propaganda.

A right is something you get to do and they can't stop you. An obligation is something you have to do or there's a penalty for failing to do so. Voting is a right, not an obligation. That's just dictionary.

- an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment

Just to be clear, was discussing the moral obligation. Perhaps as one post suggests I could use instead the word "responsibility" to avoid the confusion in some cases.

Also this is r/worldpolitics so I am not referring to any specific region, country, county etc. as some mention. I just feel that people all around, dismiss politics and the best way to approach this is to educate people about the importance of casting a vote and the impact of not using their right. I am making the argument that we need to do talk about voting, what it means and why. Perhaps then, people can start paying more attention to the policies promoted, candidates' use of words and arguments etc.

The problem with some rights, is that we take them for granted, and we do not realize their power, importance and impact they have to our lives and our surroundings. But we need to learn what they are, what they mean and safeguard them.

Thank you very much for all those who have contributed or continue to do so. I have tried to answer and offer an explanation to as many comments as I could. There are plenty of valid arguments here. Both for and against. Which is the whole point of this post.

While it would be great for example if the last third of Americans voted, voting itself is merely a civil manifestation of the fundamental right to protest that is directed at a representational party instead of the actual transgressors of society. When it's clear that the voting process has been corrupted as is the case in the US, it serves more as a distraction and inhibitor of progress compared to direct protest towards government, industry, wealth etc.

People who do not feel like they have sufficient knowledge to cast a meaningful vote should not be encouraged to do so. They are cancelling out the vote of someone who has done their homework, which is the real obligation.

That's true in countries whee some degree of democracy remains. But, in many countries - not least of them the United States - elections are a sham. It doesn't do any good to anyone in those circumstances to vote, except to the oligarchs and dictators keeping up a veneer of democracy

However, not voting, would further support those who benefit from your voting absence. Is that not right? Instead of taking your silence as criticism, they would flag and use it as support to their policies and ideas claiming in your name and everyone's who abstained, that they have the vote of the people. Yet that is the very thing you wanted to avoid in the first place. The cycle is cruel, but it is the bitter truth. That is one more reason why voting matters.

They wouldn't take it as criticism, they simply wouldn't care. They don't care what I think, or what you think. They don't even really care whether you vote, they just care that there's some show of democracy so that the people feel like they have some influence.

There are countries where voting is enforced. If they have the power to make you vote they have the power to say you can't. I have the right to vote or not vote, hopefully you do too. But we do need get more involved in our shitty local and state governments first.

There would be a tremendous void needing to be filled. If this did happen i bet we would be looking at a more than bicameral system for the first time in our lives. Basically it would open the door for more "extreme" / different ideas to have the floor. But were afraid to break the two party system so we just vote for the lesser of two evils.

That's a misuse of the word "bicameral", but in the context it is clear what you mean. What reason is there to think that the candidates you are describing would be better than the old candidates? Why don't these people with their "extreme" / different ideas run in the primaries?

Lol dont know how i passed ap gov. Anyways, look at bernie ran as a dem 4 years ago and was assulted constantly for being too extreme. They do run, if your an outsider dem, youll be crushed by the super delegates. We need more parties! Theyll be better for people like me who dont politically agree with any candidate very much. I voted for stein even though it was a waste of time. If i voted for hilllary (live in ohio) it wouldnt have counted toward anything anyways due to winner take all. Basically the whole system is broke and complete shit.

I thought the exact same thing tbh but now I’m starting to feel that if we don’t vote then the same people will just stay in charge due to the loyal voters for the main 2 parties, but if we do vote and we actually back the independents and smaller parties that may better represent us and maybe if they won a couple seats or at least were close, it might be an incentive to the other good people who might make a difference but feel like it would be a waste of their time to run with how things are currently. Therefore helping potential candidates feel like it’s worth taking a shot by showing that we will stray from the main two, as long as the candidate is worthy of course.
I think a non vote is just fine for the people that are in charge currently because it means they get to stay where they are.

Yes you can. Pretending every time you vote it matters is idiotic. Every honest person knows that many or most elections they vote in (depending on their luck of the draw in district) if they live under FPTP especially their vote has no bearing on the result. I say that as someone who has voted in most elections I was eligible for and where I've never had a candidate I favoured win. Does my frustration with that change if I didn't vote? My votes never made a difference either way, so what is it? You need this performative gesture? Its not important if the cracker really is the body of Christ, we're all making believe together?

Not voting speaks to things too is what im saying. My vote doesnt matter anyway so if there is no one derserving no one gets a vote. And sure i can complain, what will someone come and break my legs if I do?

It does not have to be an empty vote. yet that is still a choice. However, in a society where everything has to be our way or the highway, we forgot to compromise. We forgot to accept that being civilized means to discuss, accept a compromise and be engaged in a healthy debate, to find the solution that works and is acceptable by most. It means we should be ready to accept and point out the flaws while accepting constructive criticism. I would argue that realizing the importance of our vote, and its impact, could help us remember what it means to live with each other, without finger pointing, without dismissing anything that is not agreeing with us, and avoid accusing everyone for everything that happens. Is it not time to take responsibility for our choices?

importance of my vote? if you took away the vote of any one non politician in a america you'd have to look for a long time before it made a difference to the outcome. i.e. almost no elections ever are a tie, or one off from a tie.

you and me have different meanings of importance if you think a vote that doesn't change the outcome is important.

I was talking about legally enforcing everyone to vote, which would change the outcome, even if you were allowed to abstain by submitting an empty ballot

That would still give a count that would require interpretation, analysis and a debate-approach. Although I am not for "burnt" votes, I believe in voting even if you are to cast a blank.

As for the difference in opinions, yes possibly. But we are not too far. I believe however, that one should vote anyway, even if they are to loose. A vote is still added to the overall percentage. It is important. Otherwise, how would shifts in opinions be measured, how would the public's opinion, approval or disapproval, be captured? Polls do not win elections. We have witnessed in the last decade many unexpected outcomes, all because of not bothering to get to the ballot. And then we acted surprised, why those unexpected outcomes happened.

Compulsory voting? ... Hmmm... A complete new discussion on its own. Don't you think?

That would still give a count that would require interpretation, analysis and a debate-approach.

do you think any single vote, other than a tie breaker or tie maker has ever changed the analytics? the interpretation? the debate approach?

would a news show ever say "well party B got 3017 votes, obviously this is different than if they'd gotten 3016 votes, everyone who voted made a difference! otherwise we'd have never hit this milestone!"

Yes, but where did that come from? How was this dismissive attitude become an every day thing? All one needs to see is who this apathy benefits. People will argue, and debate (occasionally) in social media about ideas, needs and wants. But where it all comes down to is the ballot box. And if we are not vocal about the importance of one vote, then how can people listen?

If voting is a legal obligation, that means the consequence of not voting is that the law will be enforced by men with guns. Those men with guns can just as easily enforce a law that says no one can vote. How about instead of increasing the power of guys with guns, we maybe decrease it a bit?

I tend to agree with you, but consciously not voting is also a choice that doesn’t necessarily mean a hit to democracy.

I often choose not to vote in mid term elections due to widespread gerrymandering in my state. I just don’t wish to act as an individual pushing that level of corruption by casting my vote towards the majority which I often fall into in my area. I’d argue that a bigger hit towards democracy is the blatant manipulation of voting power through practices like this. Another example of this involves some of the group voting tickets that countries like Australia used to have which put some people into office with questionable voting outcomes. I just don’t want to support any system that works against my right.